Sunday, October 30, 2011

Iran’s race towards a nuclear bomb is causing its Arab adversaries to contemplate building their own weapons, with Saudi Prince al-Faisal recently hinting that his country is considering the option. The Arab Spring has thrown a wildcard into the impending nuclear arms race, as it is uncertain who is coming to the forefront—and whose hands such capabilities will fall into.

In late June, Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former chief of Saudi intelligence, told NATO officials that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons “would compel Saudi Arabia…to pursue policies which could lead to untold and possibly dramatic consequences.” Another official provided more specificity, saying “We cannot live in a situation where Iran has nuclear weapons and we don’t. It’s as simple as that.” Earlier this year, Prince al-Faisal said that the Gulf Cooperation Council must start “acquiring the nuclear might to face that of Iran.” The GCC includes Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. Jordan and Morocco are set to become members as well, moving the GCC closer to a NATO-like alliance with the purpose of deterring Iran.

In 2008, King Abdullah privately told the U.S. that if Iran goes nuclear, “everyone in the region would do the same, including Saudi Arabia.” The Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates gave a similar warning in February 2009. The Saudis have been considering building nuclear capabilities for a long time. In 1999, a top member of the Saudi Royal Family visited a Pakistani uranium enrichment site, as did representatives from the United Arab Emirates separately. It has been long-rumored that the Saudis financed the Pakistani nuclear weapons program and provided discounted oil in exchange for a promise to be provided with weapons if requested.

According to GlobalSecurity.org, the Saudis already have the ability to kick-start a program independently. “While there is no direct evidence that Saudi Arabia has chosen a nuclear option, the Saudis have in place a foundation for building a nuclear deterrent,” the organization says. This year, the Saudis bought nuclear-capable missiles from China and began a $300 billion program to build 16 reactors within 20 years. However, some reports indicate that the Saudis lack the nuclear expertise and constructing a weapon could take up to two decades.

The future of Saudi Arabia, however, is very unclear. The Arab Spring has yet to manifest itself in Saudi Arabia in a dramatic fashion, but discontent is simmering. The Royal Family is stuck between the liberal, reform-minded youth and the Wahhabist extremists. The government has embarked on an incredible spending binge to cope with the pressure. King Abdullah is 88 years old and his successor, Crown Prince Sultan, is 83 years old and is thought to have cancer. The U.S. embassy in Riyadh wasreporting as early as May 2009 that he “has been incapacitated by illness for at least (the) past year.” The next in line is Prince Nayef, a foe of the reformists who has been an ally of the Wahhabists.

Prince Nayef promotes 9/11 conspiracy theories, claiming that “Al-Qaeda is backed by Israel and Zionism.” Senator Chuck Schumer demanded his removal in 2003 for his involvement in financing terrorism and Islamic extremism. However, Nayef has ridiculed Saudi imams for not fighting Islamic extremism enough, and said “All our problems come from the Muslim Brotherhood.” Still, former CIA case officer Robert Baer and Stephen Schwartz of the Center for Islamic Pluralism separately told FrontPage in December that Nayef is likely to promote Islamic extremism and reduce counter-terrorism cooperation with the U.S. Schwarz also warned of “serious social upheaval” in Saudi Arabia if Nayef takes the helm.

Nayef’s ascent and the inevitable clash between reformists and Wahhabists makes a potential Saudi nuke even more concerning. In addition, the country has armed forces trained and equipped by the U.S. A sale of $60 billion worth of arms was agreed upon in October 2010, the largest deal of its kind ever.

There is also a strong possibility that whoever comes to power in Egypt will also begin a nuclear weapons program. The previous regime privately told the U.S. that it may start a weapons program to protect itself from Iran. If Egypt remains an enemy of Iran, then this option will remain on the table. If the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power, it is quite possibly it will also see nuclear weapons as a necessity.

In 2006, the Muslim Brotherhood openly said Egypt must acquire nukes in response to Israel’s arsenal. “We are ready to starve in order to own a nuclear weapon that will represent a real deterrent and will be decisive in the Arab-Israeli conflict,” its parliamentary spokesman said. The former General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammad Mahdi Akef, said in 2008 that Iran “is entitled to have a nuclear bomb.” In November 2010, Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi was asked if Muslims should build nukes “to terrorize their enemies,” and he answered affirmatively, adding that he was “happy” when Pakistan built them.

In a region where today’s ally can be quickly replaced by tomorrow’s enemy, the spread of nuclear weapons capabilities carries extraordinary risks. Iran’s nuclear weapons program is not just about Ahmadinejad and Khamenei, but all the leaders who will follow in their footsteps.

Iranium, a timely documentary presenting the dangerous scenarios posed to the free world by a nuclear Iran. The film exposes the dangerous ideology guiding the Iranian regime, and the devastation caused both inside and outside Iran's borders.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Christians must be prepared to answer the typical objections made against the Gospel. Most of the objections are based on simple logical fallacies. The following is a list of some of the most common fallacies used by Muslims.

Note: The average Muslim does not know that his arguments are logically erroneous. He is sincere in his beliefs. Thus you must be patient and kind in sharing with him why his arguments are invalid.

1. The Fallacy of False Assumptions

In logic as well as in law, "historical precedent" means that the burden of proof rests on those who set forth new theories and not on those whose ideas have already been verified. The old tests the new. The already established authority judges any new claims to authority.

Since Islam came along many centuries after Christianity, Islam has the burden of proof and not Christianity. The Bible tests and judges the Qur'an. When the Bible and The Qur'an contradict each other, the Bible must logically be given first place as the older authority. The Qur'an is in error until it proves itself.

Some Muslims violate the principle of historical precedent by asserting that Islam does not have the burden of proof and that the Qur'an judges the Bible.

2. Arguing in a circle

If you have already assumed in your premise what you are going to state in your conclusion, then you have ended where you began and proven nothing.

3. False Analogy

Comparing two things as if they are parallel when they are not really the same at all.

#2 Because a false analogy is drawn between Islam and Christianity, some Muslims think that any argument which refutes the Qur'an will likewise refute the Bible; any argument which refutes Muhammad will also refute Jesus Christ, etc...

#3 For example, many Muslims claim that Muhammad and all prophets were sinless. They even deny that Abraham was an idol worshipper. Thus when a Christian points out all the wicked things that Muhammad did (mass murder, child abuse, lying, etc.), the Muslims will say, "If you are right, then you must also reject your biblical prophets for doing wicked things as well."

What he is really saying is, "If you reject my prophet, then you must reject your prophets as well. If Muhammad was a false prophet, then your prophets are false as well."

The root problem is that the Muslim concept of prophethood is not the same as the Christian concept of prophethood. We teach that prophets sin like anyone else. Thus while Islam is refuted by the sins of Muhammad, Christianity is not jeopardized at all. The Muslim is guilty of setting up a "false analogy."

Whenever a Muslim responds to a Christian attack on the Qur'an, Muhammad, or Allah by flipping the argument around and applying it to the Bible, Jesus or the Trinity as if Islam and Christianity either stand or fall together, he is guilty of the fallacy of false analogy. Islam can be false and Christianity be true at the same time.

4. The Fallacy of Irrelevance

When you introduce issues which have no logical bearing on the subject under discussion, you are using irrelevant arguments.

Examples:

#1 Some Muslims argue, "The Qur'an is the Word of God because the text of the Qur'an has been preserved perfectly." This argument is erroneous for two reasons:

a. Factually, the text of the Qur'an has not been preserved perfectly. The text has additions, deletions, conflicting manuscripts, and variant readings like any other ancient writing.

b. Logically, it is irrelevant whether the text of the Qur'an has been preserved because preservation does not logically imply inspiration. A book can be perfectly copied without implying its inspiration.

#2 When Muslims attack the character and motives of anyone who criticizes Islam, they are using irrelevant arguments. The character of someone is no indication of whether he is telling you the truth. Good people can lie and evil people can tell the truth. Thus whenever a Muslim uses slurs such as "mean," "dishonest," "racist," "liar," "deceptive," etc., he is not only committing a logical fallacy but also revealing that he cannot intellectually defend his beliefs.

#3 When confronted with the pagan origins of the Qur'an, some Muslims defend the Qur'an by answering, "So what! Didn't you Christians get Christmas from the pagans?"

This argument is erroneous for several reasons.

a. It is a false analogy to parallel the pagan origins of the rites commanded in the Qur'an with the present day holidays nowhere commanded in the Bible. What some modern day Christians do on Dec. 25th has no logical bearing on what the Qur'an commands Muslims to do (eg. the Pilgrimage, the Fast, etc.).

b. It is irrelevant that some Christians choose to celebrate the birth of Christ. Since the Bible nowhere commands it, it is a matter of personal freedom. But Muslims are commanded in the Qur'an to believe and practice many things which came from the paganism of that day.

c. The Muslim by using this argument is actually admitting that the Qur'an was not "sent down" but fabricated from pagan sources. This means he has become an unbeliever (Surah 25:4-6).

#4 Some Muslims argue that the Qur'an is the Word of God because it contains some historically or scientifically accurate statements. This argument is irrelevant. Just because a book is correct on some historical or scientific point does not mean it is inspired. You cannot take the attributes of a part and apply it to the whole. A book can be a mixture of true and false statements. Thus it is a logical fallacy to argue that the entire Qur'an is true if it makes one true statement.

When a Muslim argues that history or science "proves" the Qur'an, this actually means that he is acknowledging that history and science can likewise refute the Qur'an. If the Qur'an contains just one historical error or one scientific error, then the Qur'an is not the Word of God. Verification and falsification go hand in hand.

#5 The present meaning of a word is irrelevant to what it meant in ancient times. The word "Allah" is a good example. When confronted by the historical evidence that the word was used by pagan Arabs in pre-Islamic times to refer to a high god who was married to the sun-goddess and had three daughters, some Muslims will quote dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. to prove (sic) that "Allah means God." They are thus using modern definitions to define what the word meant over a thousand years ago! What "Allah" means now has no bearing on what it meant before Muhammad.

5. The Fallacy of Equivocation

If we assume that everyone has the same definition of such words as God, Jesus, revelation, inspiration, prophet, miracle, etc., we are committing a very simple logical fallacy.

#1 When a Muslim says, "Christians and Muslims worship the same God," he is committing the fallacy of equivocation. While Christians worship the Triune God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Muslims worship a Unitarian deity. Obviously, they are worshipping different Gods.

#2 When a Muslim says, "We believe in Jesus too," he is committing the fallacy of equivocation. The "Jesus" of the Qur'an is not the Jesus of the Bible. Islam preaches "another Jesus" (II Cor. 11:4). The Jesus of the Bible is God the Son who died on the cross for our sins. But the "Jesus" of the Qur'an is not God the Son and he did not die on the cross for our sins. Thus it is erroneous for Muslims to tell Christians that they believe in Jesus, too.

#3 When a Muslim assumes that Christians have the same concept of revelation as Muslims, he is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. According to Islam, the Qur'an was written in heaven by Allah and has no earthly sources. When we prove that it comes from earthly sources, this threatens the inspiration of the Qur'an.

On the other hand, the Bible does not claim that it dropped out of heaven one day. It openly quotes from earthly sources. It uses pre-existing sources without any difficulty whatsoever, Thus while the Qur'an is threatened by historical sources, the Bible is actually confirmed by them.

#4 When a Muslims tells you that the word "Allah" has only one meaning: "the one, true, universal God," he is assuming a fallacy. The word "allah" has many different meanings.

a. It can be used as a generic term like the English word "God." Thus it can be applied to any god or goddess regardless if a true or false god is in view. (ex. The "Allahs" of Hinduism.)

b. The Nation of Islam uses it to refer to Wallace Dodd Ford, Elijah Muhammad, and Louis Farrakhan as "Allah" and teaches that all black people are "Allahs."

c. It has been used by some Christians in Arabic speaking countries as a generic name for the Holy Trinity.

d. It was used in pre-Islamic times by pagan Arabs to refer to the moon-god who was the father of al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat.

e. It is used by Muslims to refer to their god.

Islam and Christianity do not worship the same God. The Christian worships the Holy Trinity while the Muslim worships a unitarian deity.

6. The Fallacy of Force

The Qur'an commands Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims and apostates (Surah 5:33; 9:5, 29).

Some Muslims use a false analogy to answer this argument. They respond by saying, "Well, what about the Crusades? You Christians use violence just like Muslims."

It is logically erroneous to set up a parallel between Muslims killing people in obedience to the Qur'an and Christians killing people in disobedience to the Bible. While the Qur'an commands Jihad, the New Testament forbids it.

7. The Fallacy of Confusing Questions of Fact with Questions of Relevance

Whether something is factually true is totally different from the issue of whether you feel it is relevant. The two issues must be kept separate.

Examples:

#1 When a Christian argues that some of the beliefs and rituals of the Qur'an came from pre-Islamic Arab paganism, the Muslim will deny it at first. But as more and more evidence is given, the Muslim will often do a flip-flop and begin arguing, "So what! Didn't you Christians get Christmas from the pagans?" The Muslim has now committed three fallacies:

a. The "So what!" argument is dealing with the issue of relevance, not fact. You must stop the Muslim at that point and ask him, "Since you are now dealing with the issue of whether the pagan origins of the Qur'an are relevant, does this mean that you are now agreeing to the fact of the pagan origins of Islam?"

b. The Muslim has also committed the fallacy of equivocation, The Bible is not threatened by historical sources. It freely refers to them and even quotes them (Acts 17: 28). But the Qur'an denies that it has any earthly historical sources (Surah 25:4-6).

c. He also committed the fallacy of false analogy. The Bible and the Qur'an are two totally different books. The inspiration of the Bible does not depend upon the fate of the Qur'an because what Muslims claim for the Qur'an is not what Christians claim for the Bible.

8. Phonic Fallacies

The phonetic sound of a word should not be used to twist its meaning. For example,

a. Some Muslims try to prove that the word "Allah" is in the Greek New Testament because of the Greek word alla. But while the word is pronounced "alla," it only means "but" in Greek. It has nothing to do with the Arabic "Allah."

b. Some Muslims have claimed that the word "Allah" is in the Bible because the Biblical word "Allelujah." They then mispronounce the word as "Allah-lujah" But "Allelujah" is not a compound Arabic word with "Allah" being the first part of the word. It is a Hebrew word with the name of God being "JAH" (or Yahweh) and the verb "alle" meaning "praise to." It means "praise to Yahweh." The Arabic word "Allah" is not in the word.

c. The same error is found in the Muslim argument that the word "Baca" (Psa. 94:6) really means "Mecca." The valley of Baca is in northern Israel.

d. Some Muslims have tried to go from "Amen" to "Ahmed" to "Mohammed!" Such nonsense is beyond belief.

9. "Red Herring" Arguments

When a Muslim is asked to defend the Qur'an, if he turns around and attacks the reliability of the Bible, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Crusades, etc., he is introducing irrelevant issues that have no logical bearing on the truthfulness of Islam. He is trying to divert attention from Islam to other issues.

Furthermore, he is assuming that if he can refute the Bible, then the Qur'an wins by default. If he can refute the Trinity, then Allah wins by default. But this is logically erroneous. You cannot prove your position by refuting someone else's position. The Bible and the Qur'an could both be wrong. Muslims must prove their own book.

10. Straw Man Arguments

When you put a false argument into the mouth of your opponent and then proceed to knock it down, you have only created a "straw man" argument, Muslims sometimes either misunderstand or deliberately misquote the arguments Christians give them.

Example:

Some Muslims have built a "straw man" argument that claims that we teach, "The Qur'an teaches that Allah is the Moon-god and that Muslims knowingly believe in and worship the Moon-god and his daughters." They then knock down this "straw man" argument and claim victory. Of course, we never said such nonsense. What we have said is that while the Qur'an claims that Allah is God and Muslims think they are worshipping the one true God, in reality they are worshipping a false god preached by a false prophet according to a false book.

Conclusion

The average Muslim has been deceived by Muslim apologists who use such logical fallacies without regard to reason, fact or honesty. But there are many Muslims who want to be rational in their religion and thus have an open mind to rational discourse. Once they see that their arguments are based on logical fallacies, they will be open to the wonderful news that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins on the cross.

Walid al-Kubaisi, an Iraqi-born Norwegian journalist, produced and hosted the documentary for Norway television. It has never been shown on American TV.

World Domination

Al-Kubaisi said Brotherhood leaders told him they have a plan to take over Norway and the rest of Europe as a part of bringing the whole world under Islam.

"The Muslim Brotherhood has a practice. The have learned to speak with two tongues," he told CBN News.

Kamil al-Najjar, one of the film's subjects, left the Muslim Brotherhood and consequently is under threat of death.

"They're trying to deceive the people," al-Najjar tells al-Kubaisi in the film. "They have managed to deceive a lot of Western politicians into believing them."

"Their only aim is to control the world with Islam," he said. "They know they cannot use force to convert the West, so they use deceit."

However, Muslim Brotherhood leaders are quite open about their intentions with those like al-Kubaisi, who traveled to the Middle East and speaks fluent Arabic.

"The Muslim Brotherhood's dream is to form a total Islamic state," Muhammed Mahdi Akef, who was the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood until 2010, told al-Kubaisi.

"Where?" al-Kubaisi asked.

"I don't know," Akef replied. "We Muslims are currently scattered all over. There is still a long way to go before we are able to take control in Europe. It will take a long time before it can happen."

Religion of Bondage

Al-Kubaisi also interviewed Gamal al-Banna, the brother of Hassan al-Banna, the man who founded of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928.

Al-Banna had surprisingly harsh words for the modern Muslims Brotherhood movement, saying it does not believe in freedom "in any way."

"They do not believe in freedom at all," he said. "There is no Islamic authority that respects freedom or democracy."

Al-Banna also condemned the state of modern Islamic culture.

"The Muslim mind is rusty. It has done nothing for the last 1,000 years. One thousand years ago the innovation ended," he told Al-Kubaisi.

"What does that mean? It means that you act without thinking," Al-Banna explained.

Social Control

Al-Banna said the Muslim Brotherhood has instituted the wearing of the hijab, or headscarf, by Muslim women as a means of social control.

But it is not supported by the Koran - even the sister of the Muslim Brotherhood founder did not wear a hijab.

In al-Kubaisi's documentary, class photos from Cairo University show the evolution of the Muslim Brotherhood's program to force women to wear the hijab.

In the 1959 class photo, there are no Muslim women are wearing the hijab. None are wearing the garment in the 1979 photo either.

In the 2004 class photo, 90 percent of the women are wearing the head scarf.

The hijab has been called the Muslim Brotherhood's "logo."

Mask of Civility

Al-Kubaisi saId Norway and the West have been duped by the Muslim Brotherhood.

"The West and America both supported Islamists, and they thought, 'They're religious exactly Christian congregations,'" al-Kubaisi told CBN News.

But one of the Muslim Brotherhood's key spiritual leaders, Sheik Yusef al-Qaradawi, said on Arabic TV that "defeating Rome, Italy and Europe means that Islam will come back to Europe."

"Must this victory necessarily be won by war? No," the leader said. "I believe Islam will conquer Europe without using violence."

"The Muslim Brotherhood, it's not like, 'We will take over the world and the power," Al-Kubaisi told CBN News.

"No, no, it's not like this," he explained. "They don't speak about power at all. No, they say, 'Now, we want only this, and then this, and then this'...and then they start to work to gain more power.

Sunday, October 23, 2011

It has been a long time coming, but the Obama Administration has now officially banned the truth. Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole declared Wednesday at a conference in Washington that he had “recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts in a range of areas, from community outreach to national security.” This “reevaluation” will remove all references to Islam in connection with any examination of Islamic jihad terror activity. The Obama Administration has now placed off-limits any investigation of the beliefs, motives and goals of jihad terrorists.

Dwight C. Holton, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon, emphasized that training materials for the FBI would be purged of everything politically incorrect: “I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated.”

Holton said that he had spoken with Attorney General Eric Holder about FBI training materials that Holton claimed were “egregiously false,” and that Holder “is firmly committed to making sure that this is over….we’re going to fix it.” Holton said that this “fix” was particularly urgent because the rejected training materials “pose a significant threat to national security, because they play into the false narrative propagated by terrorists that the United States is at war with Islam.”

Cole suggested that these training materials had done damage domestically as well: “One of the many, tragic legacies of 9/11 has been an increase in prejudice, discrimination and hatred directed against persons of the Muslim and Sikh faiths and those who are, or who are mistakenly perceived to be, of Arab or South Asian descent. Some have wrongly sought to blame the horror of 9/11 on Arab-American, Muslim American, Sikh-American and South Asian American communities. It has led to attacks against places of worship and other hate crimes, to job discrimination, and to the tragic harassment of children in our schools.”

After sketching out this horror tale, Cole declared: “We must never allow our sorrow and anger at the senseless attack of 9/11 to blind us to the great gift of our diversity.” And this, he said, must involve a rejection of the stereotyping of Muslims: “All of us must reject any suggestion that every Muslim is a terrorist or that every terrorist is a Muslim. As we have seen time and again – from the Oklahoma City bombing to the recent attacks in Oslo, Norway – no religion or ethnicity has a monopoly on terror.” It was George Bush, he said, who after 9/11 “made clear to the nation that these terrorist acts were committed by individuals who distort the peaceful religion of Islam,” and now all government analysis of jihad terror would reflect that perspective.

Of course, the controversial training materials did not really claim that all Muslims are terrorists or that all terrorists are Muslims, and it is noteworthy that Cole had to resort to dismissive caricatures to make his point. For in taking this course, the Obama Administration is bowing to pressure from the Hamas-linked Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Islamic advocacy groups. In a Los Angeles Times op-ed that appeared on the same day as the conference in Washington, Salam al-Marayati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) roundly criticized existing training materials about jihad terror and demanded that the FBI and the Justice Department “issue a clear and unequivocal apology to the Muslim American community; establish a thorough and transparent vetting process in selecting its trainers and materials; invite experts who have no animosity toward any religion to conduct training about any religious community to law enforcement.”

Al-Marayati complained that training materials reflected “bigoted and inflammatory views on Muslims, including claims that ‘devout’ Muslims are more prone toward violence, that Islam aims to ‘transform a country’s culture into 7th century Arabian ways,’ that Islamic charitable giving is a ‘funding mechanism for combat’ and that the prophet Muhammad was a ‘violent cult leader.’”

In this al-Marayati was simply repeating talking points from an “expose” of FBI training materials by hard-Left journalist Spencer Ackerman in Wired, who has been conducting a campaign for some time to get the bureau to purge its terrorism training seminars of any hint of the truth about the global jihad and Islamic supremacism. Yet like virtually all Leftist and Islamic supremacist critics of anti-jihad and anti-terror material, Ackerman and al-Marayati take for granted that such assertions are false, without bothering to explain how or why. Apparently they believe that their falsity is so self-evident as to require no demonstration; unfortunately, however, there is considerable evidence that they are true, and that in banning such materials, the Obama Administration has essentially banned the truth.

Are “‘devout’ Muslims are more prone toward violence”? While certainly not all devout Muslims are terrorists, virtually all Islamic terrorists are devout Muslims. In recent years, not only Osama bin Laden but also devout Muslims such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, would-be Times Square bomber Feisal Shahzad, Arkansas jihad murdererAbdulhakim Muhammad, and other jihad terror plotters such as Khalid Aldawsari, Baitullah Mehsud, and Roshonara Choudhry, among many others, reference Islamic teachings to justify violence against unbelievers. Just recently, Detroit underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab declared in court that Muslims should only be judged by the Qur’an.

Is the “Islamic charitable giving” a “‘funding mechanism for combat’”? If not, one wonders why so many Islamic charities in the United States and around the world have been shut down for funding terrorism, including what was once the largest Islamic charity in the United States, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), as well as the Global Relief Foundation (GRF), the Benevolence International Foundation (BIF), and many others.

Was Muhammad a “violent cult leader”? Certainly one definition of a cult is that members are not free to opt out if they choose to do so – and it was Muhammad who enunciated Islam’s notorious death penalty for apostasy by saying, “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Bukhari 9.84.57). Also, there are several celebrated incidents in which Muhammad lashed out violently against his opponents, ordering the murder of several people for the crime of making fun of him — including the poet Abu Afak, who was over one hundred years old, and the poetess Asma bint Marwan. Abu Afak was killed in his sleep, in response to Muhammad’s question, “Who will avenge me on this scoundrel?” Similarly, Muhammad on another occasion cried out, “Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan?” One of his followers, Umayr ibn Adi, went to her house that night, where he found her sleeping next to her children. The youngest, a nursing babe, was in her arms. But that didn’t stop Umayr from murdering her and the baby as well. Muhammad commended him: “You have done a great service to Allah and His Messenger, Umayr!” (Ibn Ishaq, 674-676).

Al-Marayati’s demand that the FBI and Justice Department “invite experts who have no animosity toward any religion to conduct training about any religious community to law enforcement” is at the heart of this entire affair, and illustrates the assumptions upon which the Obama Administration is now proceeding. For years Islamic advocacy groups like MPAC and Hamas-linked CAIR have asserted loudly and often that telling the truth about Islam’s doctrines of jihad warfare and supremacism constituted “hatred,” and endangered innocent Muslims. Hamas-linked CAIR has trumpeted and even fabricated hate crimes against Muslims in order to exaggerate this perception of Muslim victimhood.

The entire premise of all this, however, is false. The now-banned FBI training materials were not written out of hatred for Muslims. They were put together in order to give agents an accurate picture of the beliefs and perspectives of jihad terrorists. It is unfortunate but true that the Qur’an and Sunnah do contain doctrines of warfare and exhortations to make war against and subjugate infidels (cf. Qur’an 2:191; 4:89; 9:5; 9:29; 47:4, etc.), and it is not an act of “hatred” to point this out, or even to scrutinize the Muslim community in the U.S. in order to try to determine its view of these texts and teachings. The only people who are genuinely threatened by such scrutiny are those who wish jihad terrorism to be able to proceed unhindered.

And there’s the rub: in banning the truth about Islam and jihad, the Obama Administration has opened the door for increased jihad terror activity in the United States. Agents who do not understand the threat they face and are constantly surprised by the places where that threat is coming from will be powerless to stop this jihad activity. And the nation will reap the whirlwind.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Cyrus McGoldrick, Civil Rights Manager of the New York chapter of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, submitted a written statement to the New York State Senate’s Standing Committee on Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs during its recent hearings on terrorism. In it, he does his best to obfuscate the reality of Islamic jihad terrorism and to claim victim status for Muslims, and along the way makes this statement about my training military, law enforcement and intelligence personnel about Islam:

In the same video he asserts, “From a historical stand point [sic -- "standpoint" is one word, McGoldrick], it is not even clear that Muhammad existed.” In that video he asserts he is writing a book currently entitled Did Muhammad Exist. It seems realistic to ask how a trainer who questions the existence of Islam’s founder can be expected to present a reasonably-balanced view of the faith.

Here is yet another example of how Hamas-linked CAIR uses distractions, diversions, deceptions and fuzzy logic to divert attention away from the global jihad and Islamic supremacism. Obviously, there is no necessary reason why doubting Muhammad’s existence would lead one to give an unbalanced presentation about Islamic jihad terrorism, any more than one has to believe in Santa Claus to mount a decent production of Miracle On 34th Street. (In fact, I’d say that being employed by a thuggish Hamas-linked Islamic supremacist Muslim Brotherhood front group makes one much less likely to be a trustworthy witness about Islam than being a non-Muslim who has examined Islamic texts and teachings.) Not believing that Muhammad actually said or did what Muslims think he said and did doesn’t mean that I cannot and do not explain what they believe accurately — and obviously the plethora of jihad plots and attacks worldwide, perpetrated by Muslims who believe exactly what I say they believe, demonstrates that.

McGoldrick is right about one thing: I really did “assert” that I am “writing a book currently entitled Did Muhammad Exist,” because I really am writing a book called Did Muhammad Exist?. I explored what Muslims, including jihad terrorists, believe that Muhammad said and did in my 2006 bestselling book The Truth About Muhammad, but in that book I noted that while it was important to know what Muslims believe about Muhammad, the historical foundations of the canonical Muslim narrative were actually very shaky.

And so now, in my next book, I’m examining those shaky foundations, and explaining why they matter in today’s conflict between the West and the Islamic world — and indeed, they do matter a great deal, in ways that will surprise you. Right now Did Muhammad Exist? is scheduled to be published next spring by ISI — not that one, but this one. As the date for the appearance of the book draws closer, I’ll give more details at Jihad Watch and Frontpage of why this project is important, and the question in the title worth considering — however Hamas-linked CAIR reps may weep, gnash their teeth, and claim victim status.

Sunday, October 9, 2011

While Sharia law courts have created a lot of controversy in Britain, they would be even more controversial if people found out that Sharia has led to the legalisation of child marriage in 6 countries. As the vast majority of people seem to be unaware of Sharia's child marriage dimension, this article only uses mainstream media articles, the UN, a major opinion poll company's Sharia law polling data, and the early biographer of Mohammed who Muslims say is the most reliable, and who states unequivocally that that Mohammed married one of his wives, 'Aisha, when she was a child as its sources.

For example, this 2008 "Times" article about forced child marriages in Nigeria, reveals that there is "fierce resistance" in its mostly Muslim states to a ban on child marriage, because they see such a ban as contrary to Sharia, which is why only one of them has agreed to a modified form of the ban (which outlaws marriage to pre-pubescent girls):

Sharia is based on "The Koran", and the "Sunnah" (the words and deeds of Mohammed), and according to Sahih al-Bukhari, who is regarded by Muslims as the most reliable early biographer of their prophet, the founder of Islam married one of his wives, 'Aisha, when she was 6, and consummated that marriage when she was 9, as volume 7, book 62, number 64 of this University of Southern California Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement translation of Al-Bukhari reveals:

These 4 BBC News, "New York Times", UN, and "Wall Street Journal" articles mention Islamists in Yemen, Niger, and Saudi Arabia who say that Mohammed's child bride is the reason why they are in favour of child marriage:

The "Views of harsh punishments" section of this 2010 Pew Research poll, revealed that most Muslims in Nigeria support 3 grotesque, and extremely violent Sharia punishments (stoning adulterers to death, cutting off the hands of thieves, and executing people who abandon their Muslim faith), and that Muslims in Pakistan, Jordan, and Egypt are even more strongly in favour of those 3 punishments, so it is not surprising that, for the same obvious Sharia reason, grotesque child marriages are legal in 4 other mostly Muslim nations, and were until recently legal in another mostly Muslim country:

Saudi Arabian law is based entirely on the harshest of the 3 Sunni schools of Sharia jurisprudence (the "Hanbali"), so it is no surprise that as this 2010 "San Francisco Chronicle" article explains, child marriage is still legal in that country, although the Saudi justice minister said in 2009 that the minimum marriage age should be raised to 18:

That article quotes Saudi marriage official Ahmad al-Muabi's opinion that fathers can legally sell their 1 year old daughters to husbands if they wish.

Moreover, once a Saudi girl or baby has been sold to a husband, she can then find it difficult to divorce him, as the just cited "San Francisco Chronicle" article pointed out that a Saudi court would not allow an 8 year old girl to divorce her middle aged husband.

In another case which this BBC News story discusses, a 12 year old Saudi girl asked for a divorce from the 80 year old husband she had been sold to, after he allegedly raped her, but she then dropped the divorce case, because her father wanted her to stay married:

People tend to think of Turkey as a relatively secular Muslim country, but the "San Francisco Chronicle" article about Saudi Arabian child marriage which I cited a moment ago, also mentions the fact that Turkey's Islamist government reduced the minimum marriage to 12 in 2009. The result of that law change, was of course the legalisation of forced child marriages, which is why this Turkish newspaper article discusses the case of a Syrian 12 year old girl whose family sold her to a middle aged Turkish husband, who then raped her and forced her to take drugs, which led to Turkish police having to rescue her after her Syrian family complained:

There has also been controversy over child marriages in Yemen in recent years, but because of Islamist opposition to outlawing them, they are still legal, which is why a 2009 ban on them was overturned after just 1 day:

Moreover, in Iran, where the minimum marriage age is now 16 for women and 18 for men, Sharia law recently led to the age of consent for girls being 9 within marriage, as this 2006 BBC article about a 16 year old Iranian woman who was executed for having sex outside marriage explains:

Finally, even when child marriage is illegal in mostly Muslim countries, Islamists often simply ignore the law. For example, child marriage is illegal in Afghanistan, but this 2011 "Time" magazine article about Afghan wives being jailed for fleeing violent husbands, points out that, "Nationwide, more than half of all girls are married before they turn 15, usually to settle disputes.":

So will Britain's Sharia courts lead to Britain's Islamists ignoring British democratic law by selling young girls to men? After all, as this 2011 article points out, polygamy, which like selling girls to men is a product of an extremely male dominated Sharia culture in which males have a far higher status than females, is already widespread in Britain, despite the fact that polygamy is illegal under British democratic law:

By Diana WestHaving passed the 10th anniversary of 9/11, I can now say with certainty that something major was missing from all of the ceremonies, the symbolism and the media coverage. It was something that not only captures the meaning of the attacks themselves, but better defines our response to them than any other single thing. It is the face of the age itself, and it is not Osama bin Laden's.

I refer to the most familiar of the 12 Danish Muhammad cartoons, the one by Kurt Westergaard. I always think of this world-famous drawing as "Bomb-head Muhammad," for the lit bomb that serves as Muhammad's turban. (This is no fantastical image, as we learned last month when Afghan President Hamid Karzai prevailed upon local imams to implore their flocks to stop putting bombs in their turbans after three separate assassinations via turban bombs took place.)

I say "world-famous drawing," but have you ever actually seen this cartoon printed in a newspaper, or shown on a news broadcast? No. With exceptions to be counted on one hand, this ultra-potent image has never received mainstream media display, despite its almost continual newsworthiness.

Yes, the media have covered the most violent eruptions of jihad that Muslims still wage against Denmark for having a free press with the temerity to function in dereliction of Islamic law. These have ranged from Islamic rioting that killed more than 100 people, to Islamic attacks on Danish interests, to Islamic boycotts of Danish products, to Islamic plots against the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, to this week's Islamic security threat against Westergaard that sent him home early from a trip to Norway.

But Western media have almost never dared flout Islamic law (Shariah) to show what "the fuss" was all about. They have almost never published the Westergaard Muhammad, which not only depicts Muhammad, Islam's prophet (verboten) but also illustrates the violence of Islamic jihad -- an implicit criticism of Islam, also verboten.

Instead, the free press of the West has accepted and enforced Islamic limits on expression by voluntarily censoring this skillfully executed, pointed political cartoon. Even when on Jan. 1, 2010, Westergaard was almost assassinated inside his home in Denmark, along with his 5-year-old granddaughter, by an ax-wielding Muslim, Western media again bowed to Shariah by omitting the "offending" cartoon from coverage of the attack. It is that censorship, that bow to Shariah, that defines the post-9/11 age. It also makes the Westergaard Muhammad its poster child.

Little did Westergaard imagine in 2005 that he was drawing an image for all time when he sat down to contribute a sketch to an artists' page full of Muhammads for Jyllands-Posten -- an exercise editor Flemming Rose specifically devised to demonstrate that Denmark wasn't under Islamic law, which prohibits such drawings.

But more than any shot of Osama bin Laden, the Westergaard Muhammad symbolizes our age. Bin Laden was a mass murderer, an external threat to ward off, hunt down and kill like an uncommon criminal. But the Westergaard Muhammad turned out to be one Westerner's mirror on the 9/11 attacks, and the wider West flinched at the reflection. From government to the academy, from media to the military, we couldn't -- and can't -- look at it in public. To this day, we refuse to face the history of jihad to extend Islam's law that the 9/11 attacks exemplify and that this cartoon so sharply symbolizes. Instead, we avert our eyes from the face of jihad and accept Islam's law.

This tells us that 9/11 wasn't a crisis about security. Rather, it was a crisis about our own insecurity -- our inability to stand up and defend the liberties that made us who we are -- or, rather, who we were, or at least tried to be. Even worse, it exposed our inability as a society to emulate, let alone celebrate, those who would fight for those liberties with just their pens and brushes, their cameras and voices.

For the decade after 9/11, we chose the dhimmitude that the taboo on the Westergaard Muhammad symbolizes. It may seem like a lot to put on a quickly sketched newspaper drawing, but not until we assert our right to publish the Westergaard Muhammad will the West ever be free again.

Diana West is the author of "The Death of the Grown-up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization," and blogs at dianawest.net. She can be contacted viadianawest@verizon.net.

The revival of Islam throughout the world presents the Church today with an enormous challenge, a challenge which so far it has failed to either understand or respond to in a satisfactory way. In his new book The Third choice – Islam, dhimmitude and freedom, Australian theologian, author, activist and Anglican priest Dr. Mark Durie argues that this challenge is deeply related to the concept of dhimmmitude, a notion that lies at the heart of the Islam.

In countries or regions ruled by Islamic governments, non-Muslims basically have three choices. First, they can accept Islam and become Muslims. If they refuse to do so, they should either be killed, or (the ”third choice”) they can choose to become dhimmis. There is no other way. Dhimmis are those who voluntarily accept the position of dhimmitude, an Islamic institution offered to non-Muslims under jihad conditions. In essence, dhimmis are second-class citizens in an Islamic society.

In her preface, Bat Ye’or (author of many books including Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis (2005), Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide (2001)), introduces this important book as follows:

“Durie exposes in clear language the multi-dimensional aspects of dhimmitude, a concept that pertains to a fourteen-centuries old civilization, birthed through jihad, and structured in accordance with the strict requirements of the Sharia….

Too few Westerners grasp that the concept of dhimmitude is crucial to understanding the relationship between Islam and non-Islam. As Durie argues, through a conspiracy of silence, the heads of state, church and community leaders, universities and media smother its reality under a blanket of ignorance. With numerous examples, the author denounces this intimidated concealment, which, he affirms, is undermining Western Judeo-Christian civilization and is contrary to human freedom and dignity….

[T]his specific type of evil is not something of the past, something that its promoters have renounced or agreed to relinquish; rather, this violation of human psychological and physical rights continues to develop freely in local and international politics, whether by violent jihadist threats and terrorism, or through entrenched and chronic religious discrimination.”

The best part of the book is devoted to a thorough review of the history of Islam over the past 14 centuries, an assessment of the current revival of Islam worldwide, and a textual analysis of Islamic literature. Durie analyses the life of Muhammad, and traces the historical development of Islam to the present day. He provides a detailed but clear overview of the basic literary sources of Islam, and how they are understood and interpreted within the different Islamic streams of thought. As such, it is a valuable tool for all Christians seeking to gain a better understanding of the phenomenon of Islam.

Dr. Mark Durie is well placed to do so. He is a theologian, human rights activist and pastor of an Anglican church. He has published many articles and books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, Christian-Muslim relations and religious freedom. A graduate of the Australian National University and the Australian College of Theology, he has held visiting appointments at the University of Leiden, MIT, UCLA and Stanford, and was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 1992.

While based on extensive research, and containing many detailed notes and references, the book is intended for the average reader and is written in an accessible style. For the lay reader there is a useful Glossary of Arabic Terms, and for those interested in further research the author has compiled an extensive Bibiography. The book contains a detailed index.

Rejection

Durie demonstrates that at the heart of Islam is the notion of rejection: rejection of all those who do not submit to the demands of Muhammad. Rejection was a key factor in Muhammad’s own personal development, and as a result has characterized Islam ever since. It lies at the heart of Islamic culture today. It has resulted in Muslims themselves adopting an attitude of “victimhood”, which, amongst other things, influences the conduct of Islamic government leaders in international relations. It has also led to the systematic oppression of non-Muslims over the centuries, and especially Jews and Christians. It is this attitude of rejection, asserts Durie, that all people, and in particular the Church, must understand and oppose:

”People of many faiths and none need to find freedom from the age-old legacy of the dhimma, and Moslims too, for dhimmitude degrades oppressors and oppressed alike. This book is therefore dedicated to the healing and freedom of all those who have fallen within the reach of dhimmitude, whatever their religious convictions, non-Muslim and Muslim alike.”

Dhimmi church leaders

Durie argues, in effect, that our understanding of, and response to, Islam tells us a lot about our understanding of our own identity as Christians. He recounts many alarming stories in the book that to my mind sum up the appalling failure (refusal?) of Church leaders to date to either understand Islam or respond in a meaningful way. They have unwittingly adopted a dhimmi attitude towards Islam, and in so doing betray a deep misunderstanding of their own identity as Christians and the calling of the Church in this world. For example:

• “In March 2003, Archbishop Frank Griswold, leader of the American Episcopalian church, was interviewed for an Islamic website www.soundvision.com. He stated that the US should not be a superpower but a “super-servant”. This well-meaning but naïve statement was consequently reproduced on a number of American Muslim websites, and applauded as a victory of Islam over Christianity.”

• “In 2007 a letter entitled A Common Word between Us and You was addressed by 138 Muslim scholars to the Christian world. A group of Yale theologians responded by placing a full-page advertisement in The New York Times, which was endorsed by 300 Christian leaders including Yonggi Cho, Bill Hybels, Robert Schuller, Rick Warren and John Stott. “Consistent with the worldview of dhimmitude, the Yale theologians adopted a tone of grateful self-humiliation and self-inculpation, using expressions such as:

‘it is with humility and hope that we receive your generous letter’;

the Muslims’ letter was ‘extraordinary’ and written in ‘generosity’;

‘we ask forgiveness of the All-Merciful One and of the Muslim community around the world’.

No comparable expressions of humble gratitude or expression of guilt were offered from the Muslim side. No doubt the Christians believed they were relating from a position of strength, by invoking Christian virtues of humility and self-examination. However they appear not to have taken account of the dynamics of dhimmitude and the possibility that these statements could be understood by Muslims as a display of self-acknowledged inferiority.

Ironically, while this dialogue was being conducted on the pages of the New York Times, the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic thought, which had initiated and hosted the Common Word process on the Muslim side, was broadcasting fatwas on its website by its Chief Scholar which condemned converts from Islam to Christianity as apostates, characterizing them as deserving of death or else they should be stripped of all legal rights and treated legally as non-persons (because they ought to be dead).”

Dhimmitude, the Jews and Israel

This book is also important in that it exposes how Islam is so fundamentally rooted in its rejection of the Jewish people, and that this attitude still informs the approach of Muslims today towards Israel and the Jewish people. Although in some times and places their treatment was more humane than in others, Jews and Christians have always been treated as dhimmis. It is this same basic philosophy that underlies the attitude of the Muslim world towards the State of Israel, and why so many Muslims ultimately cannot accept the notion of a Jewish State.

One begins to understand why Yasser Arafat in 2000 at Camp David was unable to accept the offer by Prime Minister Barak for over 95% of the West Bank. Had he done so he would have faced certain death at the hands of his own Muslim supporters.

Durie challenges the claim of historian Bernard Lewis that Islamic hostility towards Jews is a cultural and not a theological issue. Durie: “Islamic hostility to the Jews is theological to its bootstraps…. Lewis’s astounding claim … has been relied on by many Western intellectuals, corrupting their understanding of Islamic history.”

Durie’s book is a powerful warning to both Christian and secular leaders to confront the reality of Islam, and not to adopt a dhimmi attitude of submission. This requires holding onto the truth while acting in love.

”Love for the other and truth are two attributes to be held together, the one complementing the other. Truth without love can be harsh and even cruel, but love without truth can be equally dangerous, as, lacking discernment, it steers the soul into shipwreck after shipwreck. Neither of these alternatives is acceptable.”

The Third Choice – Islam, dhimmitude and freedom is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand Islam and what it means for the Church and Israel today.

Saturday, October 8, 2011

The world is rapidly crumbling under the combined political, economic, and religious assaults. Politically, nations are at each other’s jugulars. Economically, there are more people than humanity can adequately feed, house, and care for. Our numbers keep on exploding, while resources of all sorts are depleting, the environment degrading, and other life forms are being pushed toward extinction.

To exacerbate the problem, humanity’s genius is needed for addressing its monumental challenges and severely sapped by the religious menace of Islamism.

Let’s trust the ever-untrustworthy, self-serving politicians to deal with the politicalconundrum. In other words, in their for-sale-hands they are bound to make matters politically worse.

And the effete academes can sit in their ivory tower offices; smoke their pipes, and divine good as gold solutions (read, hallucinations) to the morass of the economy.

On the religious front, we are faced with the corrosive and deadly menace of Islamism. This is a subject of great concern to me and I have specific suggestions on how to deal with this ever-expanding threat to our personal and collective liberty.

Several million Muslims live in this welcoming land. Muslims are everywhere. How are we to deal with them? Let’s, right at the start, abandon some of the idiotic proposals that pop up from time to time. “Deport the Muslims, herd them into concentration camps since they are enemies of the nation, and brand them like the dastardly murdering Nazis did the Jews.” And on and on and on.

President Obama keeps saying that we are not at war with Islam. I say we are not at war with Muslims in general. We are, however, at war with Islamists who pick and choose selectively from the Quran to promote their hideous agenda. While the Islamists use the parts of their holy book that suits them, we, defenders of liberty, adhere to every word of the Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution in the battle against Islamic tyranny.

Those Muslims who are citizens are entitled to live here and enjoy the beneficence of this great country to the fullest of a citizen’s rights. At the same time, we have every right and even a responsibility to be concerned about the danger of Islamism to our way of life, a way of free people to live peacefully and respectfully with one another without in any way posing threats to the fundamental ideals that birthed this nation and sustained it to the present.

Muslims are not our enemies. Islamism is. Below are some specific suggestions on how to defeat Islamism at home.

Don’t Kill the Patient, Eradicate the Disease

A Muslim is the patient. Islamism is the disease. The overwhelming majority of Muslims contract the virus of Islamism at an early age when they are most vulnerable. Once this virus takes hold, it either completely destroys the individual’s cognitive immune system’s ability to reject the disease, or makes it most difficult for the person to see the pathology. That’s why the great majority of babies born to Muslim families remain Muslim for life. It is also a fact that a significant percentage of Muslims contract the virulent form of the belief, Islamism. Islamism is jihadist, intolerant of the “other” and is rooted in the most base beliefs and practices.

Defeat Creeping Sharia Law

I cannot overstate the dangers of Sharia law and its insidious creeping nature. Sharia law is a monumental threat to our laws that are grantors of our liberty. No effort should be spared in denying the stone-age misogynistic body of Islamic laws from invading our legal system.

In infidel lands, the slow acting yet deadly cancer of invasive Sharia is wedged into laws by powerful moneyed Islamic organizations coaxing and greasing the politicians to issue ordinances or legislate seemingly harmless provisions of Sharia. Islamic organizations and clerics who have a vested interest begin their Sharia campaign by asking for an ordinance or legislation for seemingly inconsequential things such as requiring stores to clearly designate and completely separate halal food and meat from the non-halal. What is important here is that ordinances and laws like this are the beginning of getting the government into the business of enforcing Sharia law. That's the way they get a toehold and the camel's head pokes into the room, so to speak. Before long, little by little, the rest of the terribly ugly stinking camel gets inthe room and there will be no way to get it out.

Islamism is a hydra and every head of this deadly creature, no matter how small, must be severed. If not, before long, we end up in the same irreversible and horrible mess that countries such as Great Britain find themselves in, with full Sharia law and Sharia courts.

Sharia law is also creeping in through the courts. Sadly, some judges are just as corruptible as politicians and are amenable to powerful Islamic influences for handling cases before them. The Center for Security Policy evaluated “50 appellatecourt cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Sharia (Islamic law) and American state law. The analysis finds that Sharia has been applied or formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy.”

Unless you want yourself or your children to be treated and litigated under Sharia Law, you should make sure that none of its provisions get on the books and no mercenary politician or judge does anything as an Islamist enabler. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment ofreligion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In contrast to many countries, this nation of all nations, the United States of America, has always adhered to the separation of religion and the state. Our national, state, and local governments as well as the judiciary should neither support nor persecute any religion. Judges, in particular, should completely refrain from “legislating” from the bench.

Don’t Do As Islamists Do

Don’t vilify, persecute, or even harass Muslims. They are entitled to be treated fairly, although they don’t feel they should also treat non-Muslims fairly. Believers in liberty want the God-given gift for all of mankind and not just for themselves. We want Muslims to be free also, without threatening our liberty. First and foremost, we must do what we can to empower them to exercise their gift of reason and free will and cast off the shackles of their radical beliefs. We must remain true to our Pledge of Allegiance “…liberty and justice for all.”

Don’t Lie About Islam

Lying and dissimulation is taqiyya, ordained and practiced by Muhammad, for use by Muslims only when dealing with infidels. Muslims have the patent and copyright on this shameful practice and the non-Muslims have no need for it. You use lies when you aim to deceive, when you are ashamed of something, or when you wish to distort things. Free people have no need for the abhorrent practice. The contents of the Quran that feed Islamism are the proof you need to present to Muslims.

Be Firm but Kind

Do honor to your conviction, a conviction worth defending with unshakeable resolve, yet with kindness. Avoid belligerence when challenging Muslims. Sincere kindness works much better than hostile confrontation. Attacking a person’s belief can often backfire and serve further to confirm him in the ideology. Challenging individual Muslims with an open mind and heart is much more likely to succeed in making them re-think the pathological belief and hopefully discard it.

Don’t Believe the Sanitized Versions of Islam

Paid mercenaries, Islamic apologists and many others trip over each other, overwhelming us with distorted and highly sanitized versions of Islam. The distortions and lies are frequently so blatant that we take them as truth, particularly when our ownpresidents have thrown them at us. Islam is a religion of peace, they keep telling us. It is not and it has never been. Study the facts. Read the Quran, study the Sunna and Hadith from Islam’s own historical documents and find out for yourself why Islam is not what its apologists claim and, in fact, it is a menacing scourge. You need nothing more. Their very own sacred book and other records are your best proof to reason with Muslims and help them leave the fold.

Drain Islam’s Source of Funds

Money is the lifeblood of every enterprise. It is money, much of it from oil sold to the kafir world by oil-bloated Islamic countries. We, the kafir are literally financing our own destruction by heedlessly continuing our addiction to oil. We are forced to buy oil from our very enemies, because oil is oil. If we boycott the oil from the Persian Gulf area, then we have to buy it elsewhere unless we buckle down and do what we must to become self-sufficient in energy. We indeed have the resources to become energy self-sufficient, but don’t seem to have the will to do it.

Challenge Professors, Preachers and Individual Muslims

Don’t get cowed by professors. Challenge them to document their claims and provide them with your own evidence that clearly falsifies this propaganda. Attend mosques and Islamic centers and do the same without being discourteous or belligerent. Do the same with Muslims you know or meet. Many of these people are very hard nuts to crack. Yet, helping them crack we must do to slowly wipe out Islamism from our homeland.

Work With the Media

A great majority of the media either sings the praises of Islam or avoids saying or publishing anything that might offend Muslims. Money and fear are operating here. Threats of boycotting businesses and withholding advertisements are effectively used by Islamic organizations to intimidate the media. Legal actions are also threatened against the media as well as any individual who dares to speak the truth about Islam. These litigations can be immensely costly to both individuals and companies while Islamist organizations, flushed with oil-funds, can boldly carry out their threats without worrying about the costs.

Define and Defend Freedom of Religion

Freedom of religion is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it grants the diverse people of this nation the right to worship according to their beliefs. On the other, it becomes a license for Islamist clerics to preach hate about the non-Muslims and indoctrinate their young in the intolerant, violent, and jihadist doctrine of Islamism. Thousands of mosques, Islamic centers, and university academic departments dot the land with thousands of preachers, politicians, and paid professors pushing Islam. We must make it a criminal offense to preach hate under the rubric of religion, to misrepresent and lie about religion.

Disturbingly, powerful Muslim organizations are working hard to enact legislation that would make any honest criticism of Islam a criminal offense. They aim to muzzle us from speaking the truth about Islam. Speaking this truth, they claim, is a hate crime and should be punished.

Islamic clerics have a huge vested interest in Islam. They make a very good living with lifetime job security. They do all they can to keep the charade going. And so do all the others who sing the praises of Islam. We must make sure that they do not practice dispensing misinformation, disinformation, and fanning the fire of hatred for non-Muslims, while succeeding in preventing us from exposing Islam’s true nature.

Islam is a religion of peace? That’s not the way it’s operating in Muslim lands with the daily free for all mayhem and massacres. If Muslims want to have a place in the home of the free, they must, they absolutely must, live by the rules of this nation that welcomed them and abandon the attempts at subverting our cherished way of life and replacing it with theirs.

Retaining What Is Human

We believe the Creator has endowed human beings, both men and women equally, with the gift of intellect. We believe women are every bit co-equals of men in every sphere of life, and reject Islam’s specific dogma that a woman is worth one half of a man. We also believe that all humans are endowed with a measure of freedom to think, choose, and act. As individuals, we are responsible for the manner in which we use these resources, for the good, for the bad, or simply squander them.

Islamic doctrine is diametrically in conflict with the above belief. According to Islam, the individual is a mere choice-less vessel in the hand of the all-everything Allah. Islam strips the individual of self-reliance and replaces it with unconditional surrender to Allah. Not a leaf falls without Allah so decreeing, asserts the Quran unequivocally. Insha’Allah (Allah decreeing, Allah ordaining, or Allah willing) precedes every commitment of the faithful Muslim. It is all up to Allah, as Muslims are led to believe. No wonder the Islamic world is in such a chronic state of backwardness. Muslims sit around waiting for Allah to decree and even do everything. It is a true belief of nihilism.

Resist Multiculturalism

For a variety of reasons, during the past decades, Western societies opened their doors to a flood of Muslims from Islamic lands. In so doing, they aimed to make the newcomers feel at home, retain their way of life, and live in harmony with the indigenous population. Some call it a practice in Christian charity. But good-heartedness not only failed, it boomeranged and severely hurt the welcoming hosts. It is wonderful to be charitable. It is great to be good-hearted. But being charitable and accommodating evil can empower evil to literally tear out your good heart.

Islamism and jihadism are on the rampage playing out all over the world and literally tearing out the hearts of innocent people, many of them Muslims. We don’t want to repeat European mistakes. We want no multicultural fantasy to create a nightmare reality. Muslims who live here must become part and parcel of America just like all the other diverse people who have come to this wonderful land. Muslims must abide and honor the same values and laws that have made this nation a beneficent refuge for all people. No separate but equal foolishness that was the banner cry of the segregationists, for Muslims. It must be together, equal, and under the same law.

Challenge All Politicians

The naked truth is that politicians are paid agents. They do and say what gets them elected and keeps them in office. As a voter and fund contributor, you are important. Let them know how you feel and how you are going to treat them if they sell their services and become Islam enablers. Hold them accountable at all levels of government, from the local city council to the occupier of the White House.

Conclusion

In short, we have a great country, troubled by numerous challenges. We can ill afford to become complacent or disheartened. If we band together in a common cause with devotion to our nation’s principles and values, we can meet and defeat any threat of any type or magnitude. Past generations of Americans have always done so successfully and this generation of Americans must do no less.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Amil Imani is an Iranian-American writer, poet, satirist, novelist, essayist, literary translator, public speaker and political analyst who has been writing and speaking out about the danger of radical Islam both in America and internationally. He has become a formidable voice in the United States against the danger of global jihad and Islamization of America. He maintains a website at www.amilimani.com. Imani is the author of the riveting bookObama Meets Ahmadinejad and the thriller Operation Persian Gulf.